Science shows us that colours are only different wavelengths of light but a wavelength isn’t colour. The difference between red and a wavelength is huge. Why does a specific wavelength look red or green I would suggest is not explainable by science because a wavelength and the experience of Red are two different things entirely. Science explains the wavelength and its relationship to other wavelengths, not why they appear as colours and not sound for instance. Indeed a minority of people do hear colours and see sounds, indicating that what we perceive as the nature of reality isn’t in some cases what we think it is. So how do we really know if any of our perceptions and observations is the only true correct interpretation? Science can’t answer this!
Seraphim23
JoinedPosts by Seraphim23
-
124
Does your Theology Align with Reality?
by cofty inthesits are fond of reminding us that science cannot prove there is no god, and in this they are correct.
however, science should not be dismissed so lightly by anybody who values a faith that is more than a mere fantasy.. theologians like john shelby spong have shown the intellectual honesty to embrace the truths that science has discovered and adapted their religious beliefs to take account of reality.
sadly many theists lack the courage to do likewise.
-
-
-
124
Does your Theology Align with Reality?
by cofty inthesits are fond of reminding us that science cannot prove there is no god, and in this they are correct.
however, science should not be dismissed so lightly by anybody who values a faith that is more than a mere fantasy.. theologians like john shelby spong have shown the intellectual honesty to embrace the truths that science has discovered and adapted their religious beliefs to take account of reality.
sadly many theists lack the courage to do likewise.
-
-
Seraphim23
EdenOne that was an excellent post when you said:
'Reality' as we know it is defined by observation. There is reality that escapes observation. This can be demonstrated by theoretical mathematics and physics.
Science deals only with reality as it can be grasped through observation and/or experimentation. And even then, that 'reality' is a floating concept subject to interpretation.
Eden
-
124
Does your Theology Align with Reality?
by cofty inthesits are fond of reminding us that science cannot prove there is no god, and in this they are correct.
however, science should not be dismissed so lightly by anybody who values a faith that is more than a mere fantasy.. theologians like john shelby spong have shown the intellectual honesty to embrace the truths that science has discovered and adapted their religious beliefs to take account of reality.
sadly many theists lack the courage to do likewise.
-
-
Seraphim23
It is strange how you always do that cofty when I post of late. The claim that you and anyone else including even me don’t understand what I have written. You know what though? Some others might. Philosophical points really are not that complicated.
-
124
Does your Theology Align with Reality?
by cofty inthesits are fond of reminding us that science cannot prove there is no god, and in this they are correct.
however, science should not be dismissed so lightly by anybody who values a faith that is more than a mere fantasy.. theologians like john shelby spong have shown the intellectual honesty to embrace the truths that science has discovered and adapted their religious beliefs to take account of reality.
sadly many theists lack the courage to do likewise.
-
-
Seraphim23
I agree with all your bullet points because of the evidence that supports them. I do have a small quibble though, and that is the word `supernatural` as it is another word for metaphysical, and reality does suggest that there is more to reality than science alone can define, because science is defined in part by only what can be tested. There are big gaps in understanding though that in some cases point to more that is off limits by logic, and even reason on occasion, which is itself limited by experience. If though by supernatural story’s you are referring to biblical metaphors implied by the bullet points, I agree.
Reality may well be unlimited in scope, indeed there is logic that suggests it must be, and if so science, which works via definitions (else it wouldn’t be very effective) is limited by virtue of those definitions because that is what the act of defining something does. Thus science won’t properly address issues related to infinity, even though mathematics points to infinity as well as logic.
Also no two people can agree on reality as being exactly the same thing, as each point of view will effect what is seen. Relativity shows this to be the case, which calls, philosophically speaking, into question what reality really is. The brain only really receives directly from the outside world electrical signals that are interpreted by the brain. So, is reality only electrical signals? and if not, why not? And what needs to be added in order to make electrical signals more than what they are? The bible doesn’t help with these questions much I agree, but I do think `reality` is a bit too big to be defined by science alone.
-
37
Why do Jesus lovers accept the OT as god given.
by mP ingiven the ot has a lot of cruelties, hatred and so on, surely the fact these attributes, saying and actions far outweigh the supposed love of jesus why dont they say its all fake and throw it out ?.
like what marcion did.
wouldnt it be easier to simply delete the ot and move on ?.
-
-
Seraphim23
I agree with that to a certain extent S3RAPH1M. As a Christian my own view is that Jesus went to the Jews because they needed more moral help than many cultures, along with the timing of it being in the middle of first truly international empire to spread the message far and wide as much as possible.
-
92
Ouija Board!!!
by XPeterX into those who don't believe in this shyt:you'd better not post here .
ok...so you ever used it?what experiences do you have?were you able to summon a demon?what did he tell you?what did you see?i'm really curious and i wanna try it!.
-
-
Seraphim23
Jeffro, it wasn’t a shadow figure what I saw and I want waking up or going to sleep either. It wasn’t sleep paralysis or any of those explanations. Believe me I have delved into every kind of conventional explanation over the years, and yes it is possible it was produced by my mind. There are reasons why that explanation doesn’t convince me but it is a possible one. I’m open minded myself and I do try to use Occam’s razor but because of the simplest explanation not being sufficient to explain all the facts, it forces one into more `tropical` as it were explanations. I honestly don’t expect you to believe me for any number of reasons but I admit I do feel like David Vincent from the invaders sometimes. Oh well.
-
92
Ouija Board!!!
by XPeterX into those who don't believe in this shyt:you'd better not post here .
ok...so you ever used it?what experiences do you have?were you able to summon a demon?what did he tell you?what did you see?i'm really curious and i wanna try it!.
-
-
Seraphim23
It is to you and I can understand it. However Ive seen one.
-
92
Ouija Board!!!
by XPeterX into those who don't believe in this shyt:you'd better not post here .
ok...so you ever used it?what experiences do you have?were you able to summon a demon?what did he tell you?what did you see?i'm really curious and i wanna try it!.
-
-
Seraphim23
Well frankly Jeffro I am not prepared to dismiss as easily as you some of the more exotic supernatural experiences so many people including some atheists admit to experiencing or witnessing. In part it is due to seeing some strange stuff myself.
Witness evidence is a valid form of evidence which has to be carefully processed of course, because any old made up thing would be believed otherwise, which is obviously not sensible. However not enough serious attention is given to witness testimony of this sort, from either atheists, or my fellow Christians! Believing what another, or a group of others say or not, depends on many things which needs better treatment that simply something along the lines of `I don’t want to take you seriously because it doesn’t fit with my world view`. You don’t have to become a believer in God in order to question the current definitions of science, or go beyond mere physics. Just because the scientific approach works for physical things doesn’t mean there is no evidence for nonphysical things. It is not going to be scientific evidence by definition because science currently limits itself to the physical and that is because it is practical to do so. Why? Because we are limited and dependent on a physical universe but that doesn’t mean that is all there is to reality.
-
92
Ouija Board!!!
by XPeterX into those who don't believe in this shyt:you'd better not post here .
ok...so you ever used it?what experiences do you have?were you able to summon a demon?what did he tell you?what did you see?i'm really curious and i wanna try it!.
-
-
Seraphim23
Scientists use others academic work all the time to lend general support to their own views that are not the same as the academic whose work they are using. So I don’t agree. My views at the top were quite general to start with. Roger Penrose wouldn’t include belief into the mix as I would but he does acknowledge a gap between quantum and classical explanations of reality they may help explain not only the phenomena of consciousness, but much else as well that currently goes against a common sense view of the world. Where there is a gap in understanding the nature of reality in science, there is the ability to be open minded about exotic experiences people purport to witness or experience including Ouija boards. My own views go way beyond a material gap but that in not what I am arguing here. I am arguing for open mindedness to the extent to which science doesn’t explain things yet.
-
92
Ouija Board!!!
by XPeterX into those who don't believe in this shyt:you'd better not post here .
ok...so you ever used it?what experiences do you have?were you able to summon a demon?what did he tell you?what did you see?i'm really curious and i wanna try it!.
-
-
Seraphim23
Jeffro, well there you go, he thinks there is a connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness and yes he is a materialist is his view like any good atheist. By the way, I am not saying either that conciseness exists at the quantum level, in fact I don’t think I have ever said that, so I am not sure why your reading that into what I am saying? I am saying that quantum mechanics seems to be implicated along with the fact there is a gap between classical and quantum explanations of the universe. Not just a small gap either but a huge gapping one where Penrose thinks that non computability would have manifestations in the universe from. Guess what a theory is that cannot be computed or placed into an algorithm? He is an atheist true, which I am not, yet he also apparently thinks the universe has a purpose, which has more in common with a theist when you think about it.
My point is quite simple here, if the criticism of believers is that they are dogmatic and ignore evidence in favour of thinking they know it all, even though there version of reality has not been established beyond doubt, then it seems that many an atheist are doing the exact same in a different form; the God of the gaps with theists, and with atheists it’s the God of ever expanding definitions of science. Of course a very good argument can be made that God and science should have strict definitions applied to them that are so rigid they cannot evolve as human comprehension evolves, but then something else must if they won’t, so why not call them God and science? but that’s a rabbit I won’t chase for now.